admin

Shareholder and Director Disputes – Blog 5

Book now to avoid disappointment James Edward & Associates invites you to their Shareholder Dispute Seminar at 6 PM on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 at Lincoln Inn’s prestigious Old Court Room. Please book by emailing info@jamesedwardassociates.com or calling +44 7441912822. Tactical considerations Introduction. In last week’s blog we looked at “unfair prejudice”. This week we […]

Shareholder and Director Disputes – Blog 5 Read More »

Shareholder and Director Disputes – Blog 2

Following last week’s introductory blog on shareholder disputes, we move on to consider Shareholder Agreements and how to try and avoid such conflicts. Part 2: “Prevention is better than cure” Shareholder Agreements and avoiding conflict. If your clients are wise enough to consult you before they go into business together recommending a written shareholders’ agreement

Shareholder and Director Disputes – Blog 2 Read More »

Trustees be aware – Do not sell that repossessed property at an under value!

Whilst the decision in the case of Meah-v-G E Money Home Finance Ltd [2013] EW CH 20 (Ch.) was unsuccessful and related to a mortgagee in possession, there are nevertheless lessons to be learnt. The case serves as a reminder to take care to adopt best practice when selling. Mortgage lenders in particular are always

Trustees be aware – Do not sell that repossessed property at an under value! Read More »

Red Card for a Penalty?

Construction lawyers are extremely familiar with contractual penalty clauses. Recently however contractual law and the issue of penalties in particular has again come under the judicial microscope in two reported cases:- Iman-Sadeque-v-Bluebay Asset Management (Services) Limited [2012] EWHC 3511 (QB) and Cavendish Square Holdings BV and another-v-El Makdessi [2012] EWHC 3582 (Comm) It is important

Red Card for a Penalty? Read More »

Valuation of Share Holding where there is a Dispute

Summary This is an interesting decision heard on 17th June 2013 which caught our attention involving the purchase of shares and their valuation. In summary, at first instance the Judge carried out a determination of the valuation of the company for the purpose of allowing the respondents to purchase the petitioner’s minority shares with a finding that the petitioner

Valuation of Share Holding where there is a Dispute Read More »